pvsyst_acquire_weather

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly: dry_run downloads and writes nothing, execution writes raw provider response plus CSV plus provenance manifest, existing files are not overwritten, null hours are never filled or interpolated, and unsafe timezone-offset cases are blocked. It also discloses the temperature method as a linear approximation and the dependence on provider publication status.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but front-loaded: the core action and subject come first, followed by input-mode rules, year constraints, execution behavior, and exclusions. Every sentence carries operational meaning for an 11-parameter tool and nothing is merely repeated from structured fields.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the absence of annotations, an output schema, and schema parameter descriptions, the description is largely complete on safety, file outputs, and input constraints. It still omits the meaning of altitude and csv_name and does not state what the tool returns directly for dry-run versus execution beyond describing written files.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate across 11 parameters. It explains the location_id versus latitude/longitude alternatives and the required companion fields for explicit coordinates, plus year, dry_run and temperature_method semantics, but it leaves altitude and csv_name unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description starts with a specific verb and resource: planning or executing one Open-Meteo ERA5 year as a PVsyst standard hourly weather CSV. It scopes the tool to Sites & Weather and explicitly points to pvsyst_resolve_location for location_id, making it distinguishable from nearby weather tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It clearly defines the two valid input modes, forbids mixing them, gives the valid year range and publication requirement, and states that dry_run is the default. However, it does not explicitly compare itself with other weather-building siblings such as pvsyst_prepare_weather or pvsyst_build_monthly_weather.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.